Sign in to follow this  
matti5041

Revised code G PACE

Recommended Posts

Hi all

Anyone else having fun trying to get people past the custody sgt after the change to PACE. I think it is going to mean to some serious changes to the way we deal with incidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

Anyone else having fun trying to get people past the custody sgt after the change to PACE. I think it is going to mean to some serious changes to the way we deal with incidents.

Why? The changes are not that great. They mainly provide protection in relation to person have been invited in for interview non custodially.

I suggest if your custody sergeants are making rash decisions in knee jerk panic at the new changes then you need to challange decisions. The code still supports sensible investigation processes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the change for those attending the nick by appointment...? We're supposed to treat them as Voluntary Attenders aren't we, and tell them they're free to leave... unless they try to leave, then they should be arrested in interview?

Is that the jist? Sorry... on leave, haven't read my e-mail about it.... (or done the crap NCALT no doubt..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The code G issue is causing CHAOS in my neck of the woods...

Revised Code G is just another nail in the coffin of the office of Constable. Just like restorative justice it's another way to avoid the powers of arrest and keep people out of custody, the savings I can imagine are mouth watering. If the experiment works maybe the home office can justify losing Constables when offenders can be dealt with through a cheaper criminal justice avenue.

It's not hard to plot the direction of HMG and see what they are up to. I have no doubt (if it is a positive pilot :) Code G will be further revised to "mop up" exuses made to arrest people leaving a considerable reduced force of Constables who use the powers of arrest for the most "serious" offences.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone please show me where this is descrtibed online/tell me a bit about it, please? I need to know for my novels when my criminals are nicked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come some tell what its all about, as usual my Farce haven't even bother sending anything out about it, Not that I've actually even done a Vol attendance interview, all my 'Clients' from the Motorway are usually less that Voluntary in wanting to talk to police in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose this amendment should also be met with an amended version of the 'Ways and Means Act'. I am certain that all active officers are familiar with the principal of this - If you cannot nick them for one offence find another that you can!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Revised Code G further clarifies the Necessity criteria around making an arrest. Were as before most police officers would use Prompt and effective investigation to justify an arrest now a further explanation is needed and prompt alone wont generally cut it.

For example if A has assaulted B and the only reason you need to arrest A is to interview them then you should be VA'ing them until that avenue becomes unavailable. I can see it affecting the way some domestics are dealt with further down the line which to be honest may not be a bad thing.

Having read the guidance I can see preventing harm coming into many more arrests in that someone has been violent or threatening and is continuing to be so therefore the arrest is necessary to prevent further harm.

From what Ive been told it has come about because of people arresting defendants at the front desk when they have handed themself in and therefore breaching their right to liberty when there is no need to do so.

At the minute Im very bored of this job and the way we are constantly being forced into pandering to criminals basically so as to not breach their 'UMAN RIGHTS INIT'. As far as I am concerned more people are going to be getting reported for summons in the street without interview if CPS want to drop the job they can but at least I can detect my crime.

I dont see why I should have to fight to get a prisoner into custody when they break the law. Most people I know are in the same frame of mind. I dont know how much more silly this job can get and I shudder to think.

The problem is I ve got a long time to go.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Matti.

So, basically, it's about making sure the thin blue line doesn't become the non-existant blue line because Johnny Scrote has comiitted a crime, never mind that Johnny Scrote probably won't turn up for his voluntary interview and will need someone to go looking for him,, except there is nobody available to go looking for him. This will also mean that custody suites can save money because nobody has been nicked and money can be saved on solicitors too, because Johnny Scrote can ask for advice in his own time and at his own expense?

Or have I misunderstood?

Or am I being cynical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh this is going to be fun... I'm going to stop arresting for trivial assaults etc at domestics and instead reporting them. I look forward to he results of that!

That's exactly what you have to do, you now don't have a choice there has to be necessity to bring hem into custody. Guess what if you get a civil court case further down the line it's the arresting officer not the custody officer who will get sued as the custody officer is ok to take the officers word that the arrest was necessary. So if the officer gives the all to common prompt investigation answer he will need to show why and evidence this.

Take it further and shoplifters...why is it necessary to arrest? You have recovered the property you can confirm the offenders name address, you could even complete an house search if you so require.

I disagree re the end of office constable as said above, but it is going to change how we work, expect the emergence of summons suites etc in the future and more voluntary attendance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ve been thinking about this scenario. You go to a domestic assault. On arrival it becomes clear that its very low level Mr A has pushed Mrs A no injury and both parties are calm and sober.

Mrs A doesnt want to make a complaint and isnt willing to provide a statement. Mr A agrees to leave the house and stay in a hotel for the night to let things calm down preventing any breach of the peace.

Now a few weeks ago I would have arrested Mr A to protect a vulnerable person. Now I dont know If I could justify that because he has left the address and really no one is putting pen to paper to say they have been a victim of crime.

Thoughts on a postcard.

As mentioned with shoplifters if they make an admission as many do no need to arrest just summons them and carry on with my day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: shoplifters... they're usually nicked because their previous is such they can't get RJ or a ticket etc. Now we're going to have to sit and contemp I/V them, in line with the new guidelines about arranging their legal advice and halting the I/V until legal advice attends.

This is going to be a nightmare - we aren't equipped on the street to be arranging solicitors in the middle of jobs. What likelihood is there of some methadone-dependant prolific shoplifter attending for a VA appointment?!

Do these new guidelines include arresting and street bailing? I.e. if you nick the shoplifter at scene and intend to bail him back for interview, is that unlawful too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ve been thinking about this scenario. You go to a domestic assault. On arrival it becomes clear that its very low level Mr A has pushed Mrs A no injury and both parties are calm and sober.

Mrs A doesnt want to make a complaint and isnt willing to provide a statement. Mr A agrees to leave the house and stay in a hotel for the night to let things calm down preventing any breach of the peace.

Now a few weeks ago I would have arrested Mr A to protect a vulnerable person. Now I dont know If I could justify that because he has left the address and really no one is putting pen to paper to say they have been a victim of crime.

Thoughts on a postcard.

As mentioned with shoplifters if they make an admission as many do no need to arrest just summons them and carry on with my day.

I'd be writing lengthy PNB notes to cover my arse for when Mr A returns and throws Mrs A down the stairs, and the office twunts want to know why you didn't arrest.

If policy remains that DV jobs are automatic arrest purely for 'prompt and effective' then that should extend to any other job. The necessity isn't incident-dependant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 42 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.